And if you want it for a single class member only (not all members of the entire mocked class), you can leave the propertyCallBase false, and use the methodCallBase instead, like this: mock.Setup(x => x.ConvertBack(...)).CallBase();. The latter can be used with Strict mocks also.
–
Jeppe Stig NielsenMar 13 at 15:41

But of course, this is a poor example because you're not actually allowing it to test any real classes. Mocking is useful for providing a mock to a real class that you want to unit test, and which you expect will call a method that you have mocked.

Update

After reading your question again (with the title updated by Anthony Pegram), I'm wondering if you're trying to test a real implementation of ConvertBack by mocking the implementation of Convert. If this is the case, I have a couple of observations:

ConvertBack should probably not be declared virtual, at least for the sake of this example,

You might want to refactor your code so that Convert and ConvertBack are part of different services: I'm sensing a code smell possibly arising from a lack of separation of concerns.

If you're sure you need to do this, it should still be relatively simple:

I think he is trying to verify the result of the MyConverter.ConvertBack method when a subclass does not override it.
–
Jeff OgataOct 7 '11 at 19:21

I skimmed over the quickstarts, but they were all using interfaces. Also, sometimes it's hard to know what to look for if you don't know the term, which now I know is CallBase. Thanks for the link though.
–
michaelOct 7 '11 at 19:28

@michael: Now that the question is a little more clear to me, I wrote an updated answer.
–
StriplingWarriorOct 7 '11 at 19:32